Multi-Mode Precision Strike Weapons

Multi-Mode Precision Strike Weapons
The answer for mobile targets?

Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc. 17 Oct 2006
Agenda
The Need for Multi-Mode Guided Weapons
? Definitions what do we mean by multi-mode?
? 60+ years of increasing precision but were not there yet
Identifying the Gaps in Capability
? Target Set Coverage
? Targeting infrastructure performance
? Precision engagement of movers in weather, clutter & ROE the
Holy Grail
Filling the Precision Strike Gap
? Precision Self & 3
rd
Party targeting
? Multi-mode seekers
? Weapon Data Links
Implications and Issues
? What technology, with the right TTP, might provide solutions?
Single & Multi-Mode Precision Weapons
Single Mode
? Semi-active Laser
GBU-12/16/24, etc.
? GPS/INS (CSW)
GBU-31/32 JDAM
Multi-Mode
? Semi-active Laser + GPS/INS
Enhanced Paveway II/IV
Laser JDAM
? IR terminal seeker + GPS/INS
JSOW Unitary
? DSMAC+GPS/INS+Datalink
Tactical Tomahawk
1943
1500 B-17 sorties
9000 bombs (250#)
3300 ft CEP
One 60 x 100 target
W.W.II
1970
30 F-4 sorties
176 bombs (500#)
400 ft CEP
One Target
Vietnam
A
c
c
u
ra
c
y
1999
1 B-2 sortie
16 bombs (2000#)
20 ft CEP
16 Targets per Pass
All Weather
1991
1 F-117 sortie
2 bombs (2000#)
10 ft CEP
Two Targets per Sortie
Desert Storm
A
c
c
u
ra
c
y
Revolutionary Technologies
Laser Guidance
GPS Guidance
Air Armament:
A Capability Transformation
Success Story
Dispersion:
~100 mils ~20 mils ~0.6 mils 0 mils
AOA
Longitudinal
Axis
Wind
Aircraft
Velocity
Vector
Ground
Track
T
a
r
g
e
t
O
f
f
s
e
t
S
la
n
t

R
a
n
g
e
/L
O
S
H
e
i
g
h
t

A
b
o
v
e
T
g
t
Relative
Bearing
Depression
Angle
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
Wind error
- Pre release
INS Velocity error
TAS errors
- Post release
Shear
Atmospheric model vs.
actual conditions
Dispersion error
- Ballistic table errors
- Weapon manufacturing
variability
- Ejector rack
timing/velocity
Angle, range or velocity
measurement error
Boresight error
Incorrect aimpoint by crew
G or sideslip
INS velocity, TAS or Altitude error
Range sensor errors & limitations
Beam width, graze angle, FOR,
resolution, pointing, etc
Typical Bombing System Error Sources for Dumb Bomb Delivery
Dispersion in Aerial Gravity Bombing
Typical automated freefall bomb system dispersion today is ~ 6 mils
Dive Angle
Goal:
Release when
ballistic path
intercepts target
Wind
B
a
l
l
i
s
t
i
c
s

+

G
&
C
Wind error
- Pre release
INS Velocity error
TAS errors
- Post release
atmospheric model vs.
actual conditions
Dispersion error
- Ballistic table errors
- Weapon manufacturing
variability
- Ejector rack
timing/velocity
Angle, range or velocity measurement
error, designation error
Boresight error
Incorrect aimpoint designation by crew
INS velocity, TAS or Altitude error (out of
kinematic envelope)
Range sensor errors & limitations
Beam width/dispersion, graze angle,
FOR, resolution, pointing,
stabilization, etc
Dispersion in Laser-Guided Bombing
Typical automated LGB system dispersion is ~ 0.6 mils
- ~1 Order of magnitude improvement in effectiveness for cost of FLIR +LGB kit
If release occurs within
kinematic envelope and
LGB kit functions, kit
corrects for wind and
dispersion
Laser Designation
(Offboard or Self)
Aircraft
Velocity
Vector
Designator LOS to
target must
be unobstructed
Dispersion in GPS Guided Weapons (CSWs)
CEPs for GPS/INS guided weapons are a function of targeting
accuracy, current local GPS performance, and weapon kit
guidance & control performance:
Generally, CSW CEP = (TLE)
2
+ (GPS)
2
+ (G&C)
2
GPS weapons are designed to guide to a coordinate location
?They do not detect or track a target in the conventional
sense, so ultimately, the weapons must have target coordinates
?Same in future with Galileo or other positioning systems
But the advantages are: all weather capability, and no
dispersion (Fixed-target CEP is essentially the same
regardless of range)
Difference between targets actual location and provided
coordinates
(Preplanned J DAM spec <7.2m CEP
TLE
for 13m weapon CEP)
GPS accuracy at the time/place of the attack
Ability of weapon to hold the commanded flight path
Strike Planning Begins with Target Set Analysis
Binning targets as a function of their characteristics
Mobility Hardness Size
Fixed Hard Point
Relocatable Medium Area
Moving Soft
Relative numbers of targets in 1996 CinCs
Consolidated Target Set (CCTS) used in the
General Composite Scenario for JSF analysis
~75%
Moving
~25%
Fixed
FHP
FHP
FHA
FHA
FMP
FMP
FMA
FMA
M MP
M MP
MSA
MSA
MMA
MMA
FUH
FUH
FSP
FSP
FSA
FSA
RSA
RSA
RMA
RMA
RHA
RHA
MSP
MSP
MH
MH
FHP
FHP
FHA
FHA
FMP
FMP
FMA
FMA
M MP
M MP
MSA
MSA
MMA
MMA
FUH
FUH
FSP
FSP
FSA
FSA
RSA
RSA
RMA
RMA
RHA
RHA
MSP
MSP
MH
MH
19 Target Classes
FUH - Fixed Ultra Hard
FHP - Fixed Hard Point
FHA - Fixed Hard Area
FMP - Fixed Medium Point
FMA - Fixed Medium Area
FSP - Fixed Soft Point
FSA - Fixed Soft Area
RSA - Reloc. Soft Area
RMA - Reloc. Medium Area
RHA - Reloc. Hard Area
MSP - Moving Soft Point
MSA - Moving Soft Area
MMA - Moving Medium Area
MHP - Moving Hard Point
MMP - Moving Medium Point
But the planner must ultimately consider the
mission environment
Threat: Survivability of delivery platform, designator and
weapon
Physical: D/N, VMC/IMC, Terrain (natural and/or
manmade)
ROE (Rules of Engagement): ID certainty
(Threat/Neutral/Friendly), collateral damage prediction
Target, Weapon, & Mission Pairings Follow
FHP FHA FMP FMA MMP MSA MMA FUH FSP FSA RSA RMA RHA MSP MHP
Power projection
JDAM / LGB / JASSM / TLAM
SEAD
JSOW / JDAM / HARM
Interdiction
LGB / JDAM / JSOW
CAS
JDAM / LGB
Maritime projection
SLAM ER / JDAM / LGB / HARM
Precision munitions currently cover the entire fixed target set, but can engage
movers only with favorable target behavior and mission conditions
Precision weapon pairings valid IF
(and only if):
Target doesnt move during
entire time period from targeting
to impact (for CSW)
Physical environment allows
clear LOS from shooter/
designator to target (for LGB)
Sufficient ID/Collateral Damage
confidence for ROE compliance
The Real Mission Environment:
Weather in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
70% cloud free only 30% of time
17 of 31 days good weather (clear to scattered
clouds <10K ft)
Ref: CENTAF OIF By the Numbers, 30Apr03
Currently Deployed Multimode Weapons Primarily
Improve Engagement of Stationary Targets
Requirements derived from current mission environment
? Frequent bad weather, many targets of opportunity
In Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan:
? U.S. aircraft carried mixed LGB/JDAM loads
? In clear weather used FLIR to self- target and designate LGBs
? In IMC used ground controllers to supply target ID &
coordinates
Could run into one or both conditions on a single mission
? If one, only half the bomb loadout was usable
Created US requirement for Enhanced Paveway II/Laser
JDAM multimode (Laser+GPS/INS)
? Already in UK service
The UK has been well ahead of the US in both recognizing
this multimode requirement and procuring a solution
The Challenge of Mobile Targets
Static Moving
0 - 4
Hours
4 - 12
Hours
12 - 24
Hours
~75%
~25%
FHP
FHP
FHA
FHA
FMP
FMP
FMA
FMA
M MP
M MP
MSA
MSA
MMA
MMA
FUH
FUH
FSP
FSP
FSA
FSA
RSA
RSA
RMA
RMA
RHA
RHA
MSP
MSP
MHP
MHP
~75%
~25%
FHP
FHP
FHA
FHA
FMP
FMP
FMA
FMA
M MP
M MP
MSA
MSA
MMA
MMA
FUH
FUH
FSP
FSP
FSA
FSA
RSA
RSA
RMA
RMA
RHA
RHA
MSP
MSP
MHP
MHP
Thus far, precision engagement
has not overcome the basic
problem of target mobility,
particularly when exacerbated by
adverse mission conditions (bad
weather, clutter, restrictive ROE)
Implications of Target Dwell Time
US Army study for the ATACMS
AoA classified mobility of moving
targets by three characteristics
? High - Moderate - Low mobility
Study analyzed the response time
necessary to put weapons on a
target given an assumption as to its
degree of mobility
? Study assumed stable speed and
direction of target movement
50% of high mobility target set has
an expected dwell time of < 45
minutes
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Response Time (mins)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

T
a
r
g
e
t
s

P
r
e
s
e
n
t
Low Mobility
Moderate Mobility
High Mobility
30
Current targeting infrastructure and methodologies are not
responsive enough for short-dwell targets (let alone movers)
Key Capability Gaps:
What Must be Addressed to Reach The Grail?
Stationary targets:
? Imagery mensuration or intel-based precision targeting:
Is too slow, not portable/fieldable, requires connectivity from
controller/delivery platform to limited number of centers
Requires highly-trained targeteers with expensive equipment
? Real-time coordinate generation in the field:
Is too imprecise at operationally useful ranges
Uses equipment that is expensive, heavy or both
Through-the-weather sensors lack sufficient resolution for positive
ID, especially in clutter
Moving targets:
? Historical solutions (area/cluster weapons, stopping motion by
striking choke points), cannot meet the high ROE standards we
have set with fixed-target precision strike
? Real-time precision tracking has same problems as with
stationary targets, but more acute
? Laser designation may require excessive exposure
? Must be able to do many-v-many
Dimensions in feet
Tank
T 80: 24 x 11 x 5
SAM TEL
SA-10: 41 x 10 x 12
APC
BMP 3: 22 x 11 x 8
Truck
ZIL 24 x 9 x 9
TBM TEL
SCUD: 44 x 12 x 10
Critical airborne dimension
Artillery/AAA
ZSU 23/24: 21 x 10 x 7
What Sensor Resolution is Required?
Discrimination Requirements for Mobile / Relocatable Targets
Classify
Recognize
Detect
IFFN
Ally
ADU
APC
Wheeled
Clutter
80% 90% *
IR 1.5 2
Radar 3 4
* Required number of pixels
on target critical dimension
for a particular level of
discrimination
Contact
Tracked
Tank
Enemy
Confidence
factor
Identify
M1A1
80% 90% *
IR 12 16
Radar 24 32
T80
ID requirements generally exceed performance
of currently fielded systems
Extracted from text on Johnson
Criteria and Army field targeting
SAR Displays vs. Resolution
2.5 Foot Strip
Find
1 Foot Spotlight
Localize
6 Inch Spotlight
ID / Target
Even with high resolution, SAR requires precision velocity reference
to achieve precise TLEs, and targets must be stationary
What Is It? Is It the Same Object?
ZSU-23/4 Zil-131 T-62
1 foot SAR
X-Band
15 depression angle
Spotlight mode
MSTAR Data Collection
By Sandia Natl Laboratory
FLIR Image Resolution Example
Wide Field of View
Slant range = 16.5nm
Altitude = 34,980
Narrow Field of View
Slant range = 17.1nm
Altitude = 34,980
Relative or Self Target Coordinate Generation
? Targeting occurs in local GPS coordinate reference, relative to
sensor position or another ground point (OAP or offset aimpoint)
? Relative TLE will include both measurement error and current GPS error
results require mensuration to obtain absolute WGS84
? Relative measurement error (RME) is difference between actual and measured
position relative to targeting platform, and includes errors due to sensor type,
design and geometry
Target GPS coordinates (x,y,z)
Calculated by adding
sensor-to-target ?x, ?y, ?z
to current GPS position
c
o
r
r
e
la
te
d
(b
ia
s
)
u
n
c
o
r
r
e
la
t
e
d
(
n
o
is
e
)
G
P
S
s
e
n
s
o
r

r
a
n
g
e
/
l
o
s
c
o
r
r
e
la
te
d
(b
ia
s
)
u
n
c
o
r
r
e
la
t
e
d
(
n
o
is
e
)
G
P
S
TLE = (RME)
2
+ (GPS)
2
RME
RME has many error components
& limitations that vary with range,
geometry and sensor design and
performance
?z
?y
?x
?z
?y
?x
Adding precision location/tracking
to ID requirements adds to
complexity of targeting systems
Solving the Target Motion Problem
in a Difficult Mission Environment
Analogous to air-to-air engagement in slower motion, except:
? Shooter & weapon cannot maneuver below target
? Huge increase in clutter
Leads to two basic approaches:
? Continuously track target, provide position updates to weapon at
suitable rate using one or more data links (like tail control AAM)
Can be done with one or more onboard or off-board sensors
AMSTE program (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement)
has demonstrated a direct hit on 30+ MPH truck using both JSOW
and JDAM, using JSTARS & TACAIR or UAV tracking
Future networks could also enable ground tracking (e.g. UAV
coupled with a weapon data link)
? Add terminal seeker to weapon, use GPS to navigate into seeker
acquisition box (like AMRAAM or Advanced Paveway)
Proposed by Joint Common Missile, probable for SDB Phase II
Positive ID in clutter still a problem if no MITL datalink is used
Notional Seeker Are Seekers the Answer?
Notional 12 x 9 seeker
Kill Box
5K ft alt
9K ft alt
1900 ft
1050 ft
1K ft alt
210 ft
Seekers can null out some steering errors, but
what about min ceiling and ID confidence?
Seeker FOV diminishes
rapidly as weapon falls
? Will priority target be in
view?
? Does ceiling allow
sufficient time for ID &
guidance algorithms?
Resolution vs. ID Confidence
Complicated by a Clever Enemy
Operation Allied Force
At night, when these groups heard a
Predator or AC-130 coming, they pulled a
blanket over themselves to disappear from
the night-vision screen. They used low-tech
to beat high-tech.
?>50% Cloud Cover >70% of the Time
Unimpeded Airstrikes Only 24 of 78 Days
?Extensive Enemy Use of Deception
Techniques and Concealment
If a human observer at close range is
uncertain about ID, how well can a
remote sensor or seeker perform?
Interim Solutions:
Litening Pod Downlink & ROVER
Sensor downlink from Harrier and Hornet
? Developed by US Marine Corps for offensive air support
missions (CAS, ground aided strike)
? Supplies GCE video feed of aircraft targeting sensor or UAV
Litening Pod Video Downlink Capability
USMC downlink Litening Pods in OIF
? 5 Pioneer/9 Predator Pods
43 Rover stations in theater
? Other organic receive stations
(MRS, RRS,GCS)
? Access to UAV feeds
New ways to employ
? Convoy Escort / ISR (1000+) combat
missions
Benefits
? Rapid & positive target ID
? Increased GCE SA (Situational Awareness)
? Very effective against stationary targets
Actual ground display
Precise geo-coordinates of any tactical imagery feature
available once controlled to reference image
Tactical Image Reference Database Image
?Registration software IDs common features in two images
?Tactical image controlled to reference via edge/feature matching
?Algorithm identifies and links image tie points
In-flight or Field Registration of Tactical
Imagery
Auto Mensuration of Tactical Image
?~10 minutes
?Targets present/observable
?~10 meter TLE for field forces
Reference Database on Laptop
?Targets not present
?Created/uploaded prior to deployment
?Precisely geo-referenced
Current Application:
Precision Strike Suite for Special Operations Forces (PSS-SOF)
What About the Future?
Building a Networked System of Systems
Joint AF/Navy Weapons Data Link Network
ACTD Desired capabilities:
?Weapon In-Flight Target Update
?Weapon Retargeting
?Weapon In-Flight Tracking
?Weapon Bomb Impact Assessment (BIA)
?Weapon Abort
DARPA Quint Network Technology ACTD
Hardware and architecture to link:
?Tactical Aircraft
?Dismounted ground forces
?Small UAVs
?Armed UAVs
?Precision weapons
QNT
How Achieving The Grail Could Look
Conclusions
In the end, MultiMode weapons are only part of the answer
for moving and relocatable targets
Must be able to target & track movers precisely, ID
confidently, with acceptable Collateral Damage, through the
weather, in cluttered environments, with many v. many
engagements at once
Over & above the weapons, this will require:
? Persistent observation at high resolution
? Precise track generation
? A common network between ground observers, targeting and
delivery platforms, and weapons
We have some distance to go
? But programs such as the DARPA Quint Networking
Technology (QNT) ACTD could be a fair start

Multi-Mode Precision Strike Weapons

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Multi-Mode Precision Strike Weapons

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Multi-Mode Precision Strike Weapons

The answer for mobile targets?

Anda mungkin juga menyukai